Metal Halides

[wiszmaster]

This afternoon i managed to aquire a light fixture with 3 x 150w MH bulbs ... tonight i put them on the tank to see how it would look . . . . . .


DO NOT LIKE IT!

my xenias have barely any color ... the acros on top looked decent .. but thats about it.
I have to honestly say that i was not all that impressed.... i am however impressed with the LED moonlights that are in that fixture .. they light up the tank nicely ... REALLY brings out the colors in .. especially the greens.

 

[ConcreteReefer]

What kind of bulbs are they? 10k's?

I hope you covered your corals with something (light diffuser) before adding lights. You could damage them if your not careful.

I use 2-150watt 14ks HQI's with 2-96 watt dual actinics.. Looks awesome. I love the shimmer lines that halides create.

 

[Hobster]

As Concrete stated. Depends on the brand, what "k" and how much use on them.

 

[wiszmaster]

they were 14K 150's ... the shimmer lines are alright ... i currently keep about 650w of T5 on my tank .. i still need to add the last 2 48" bulbs ...

 

[coralfarmer84]

lol so quickly to bash metal halide....

allow me to professionally analyze your conclusion

You were running a fixture that had a total of 450 watts spread over 6 feet.

Your tank is 5 feet long with 760 plus watts of T-5 lighting. Half of which I'm assuming are strictly actinic tubes. Thats over 300 watts of pure actinic to make the greens pop. This particular halide system had no actinic whatsover. Therefore greens are not going to stand out as much. Keeping in mind that T-5 lighting is slightly less intense then metal halide, I would have to say if you found a 5 foot fixture with the 3x150 watt halides and added only 160 watts of T-5 actinic, you'd get the nice shimmer, plus you'd get better and more intense lighting for growth. My guess is if you left the halides on the tank for 4 months you'd notice much more growth on stonies and corals inparticular than the previous 4 months of T-5. So in conclusion, its a safe bet to say you didn't like the halides cuz you are used to actinic supp. along with twice the amount of watts over your tank.

This has been a in depth analysis by Ryan aka Coralfarmer.

lol :lol: :lol:

 

[wiszmaster]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9152276#post9152276 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by coralfarmer84
lol so quickly to bash metal halide....

allow me to professionally analyze your conclusion

blahh blahh blahh

So in conclusion, its a safe bet to say you didn't like the halides.

This has been a in depth analysis by Ryan aka Coralfarmer.

lol :lol: :lol:

lol - thanks brotha!

let me reply to your professional analyze!:

1. i'm running about 600w
2. only 2 of them are atinics
3. yes, you are right - if i had actinics i'm sure the colors would've looked better.
4. i know it wasn't a fair comparison ... just figured i'd give me $0.07 cents to this heavily debated & fought over civil war starting topic.

 

[keinreis]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9152276#post9152276 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by coralfarmer84
lol so quickly to bash metal halide....

allow me to professionally analyze your conclusion

You were running a fixture that had a total of 450 watts spread over 6 feet.

Your tank is 5 feet long with 760 plus watts of T-5 lighting. Half of which I'm assuming are strictly actinic tubes. Thats over 300 watts of pure actinic to make the greens pop. This particular halide system had no actinic whatsover. Therefore greens are not going to stand out as much. Keeping in mind that T-5 lighting is slightly less intense then metal halide, I would have to say if you found a 5 foot fixture with the 3x150 watt halides and added only 160 watts of T-5 actinic, you'd get the nice shimmer, plus you'd get better and more intense lighting for growth. My guess is if you left the halides on the tank for 4 months you'd notice much more growth on stonies and corals inparticular than the previous 4 months of T-5. So in conclusion, its a safe bet to say you didn't like the halides cuz you are used to actinic supp. along with twice the amount of watts over your tank.

This has been a in depth analysis by Ryan aka Coralfarmer.

lol :lol: :lol:

 

[keinreis]

here he goes he is one of those halides are the only way guys... before you say halides put out more intense light you might want to find some proof of that. There has been many tests done on here where they put out the same if not more par then halides, and there is alot of people who have claimed better groth from t-5's after ditching their halides. I know marco can back me on this as I know he has read the threads with the geeks and their par meters doing all sorts of testing. One thing I feel strongly about is halides are not the only way to go. Sure they work, but many people have had just as good of success with t-5's. again who is right, and who is wrong? neither! seems to me both set-ups are great for keeping corals and clams happy.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9152276#post9152276 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by coralfarmer84
lol so quickly to bash metal halide....

allow me to professionally analyze your conclusion

You were running a fixture that had a total of 450 watts spread over 6 feet.

Your tank is 5 feet long with 760 plus watts of T-5 lighting. Half of which I'm assuming are strictly actinic tubes. Thats over 300 watts of pure actinic to make the greens pop. This particular halide system had no actinic whatsover. Therefore greens are not going to stand out as much. Keeping in mind that T-5 lighting is slightly less intense then metal halide, I would have to say if you found a 5 foot fixture with the 3x150 watt halides and added only 160 watts of T-5 actinic, you'd get the nice shimmer, plus you'd get better and more intense lighting for growth. My guess is if you left the halides on the tank for 4 months you'd notice much more growth on stonies and corals inparticular than the previous 4 months of T-5. So in conclusion, its a safe bet to say you didn't like the halides cuz you are used to actinic supp. along with twice the amount of watts over your tank.

This has been a in depth analysis by Ryan aka Coralfarmer.

lol :lol: :lol:

 

[ConcreteReefer]

T5 + HQI is the way to go. If my deal falls apart with the Solaris, I will buy a combo fixture with both.

Marco- Your comparing apples to oranges, Unhook your actinic T5's and then do a comparison.

There's a reason that 90% of SPS I've seen tanks are using halides, they work.

 

[wiszmaster]

Jeff,

I had already stated that my comparison wasn't fully serious ... but in all honesty - there are plenty of people that grow some great tanks w/out MHs ... if you were to give them a try - i'm sure you'd see what i'm talking about.

If i had to do it over again, and money wasn't an issue, i'd still go with T5's.

 

[wiszmaster]

look up the user grimreefer (sp?) on here ... he has done many comparisons, checked the PAR & output of MH/VHO/T5/PCs ... please check it out yourself!

I'm by NO means saying that T5's are the answer to all questions reefing - but i do believe that they are a reat alternative to MHs that run HOT, expensive & draw more wattage than a small african village. ;-)

 

[ConcreteReefer]

LED's are going to take over the market in the next few years anyway. So this T5 vs. MH is pretty much pointless.

Wiz- I totally agree with you-T5's are a great/cheaper alternative to MH's. I'm actually going to buy an Icecap T5 48" retro for my sump/refugium.

 

[wiszmaster]

48" for your sump/fuge?

are you going to light up your whole sump? i'd refrain from doing so - unless you want algae growing in the whole sump ... i'm about to put some black acrylic against the walls of my fuge, and get a 20" PC fixture for my fuge ... but the last think i want is to light up the whole damn thing ...

 

[wiszmaster]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9160530#post9160530 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ConcreteReefer
LED's are going to take over the market in the next few years anyway. So this T5 vs. MH is pretty much pointless.

Wiz- I totally agree with you-T5's are a great/cheaper alternative to MH's. I'm actually going to buy an Icecap T5 48" retro for my sump/refugium.

I'd beg to differ.
For 1 - LED fixtures are still much too expensive to 'take over the market' anytime soon.

I.E.:
14" 20K Solaris LED Illumination System. - $849
24" 20KSolaris LED Illumination System. - $1308
36" 20K Solaris LED Illumination System. - $1878
48" 20K Solaris LED Illumination System. - $2325
60" 20K Solaris LED Illumination System. - $2896
72" 20K Solaris LED Illumination System. - $3344

The life excpectancy of these LEDs is supposedly 50,000 hours - that would be 5.7 years.
Great - so in 5.7 Years the LEDs will 'brun out' - but in all honesty - LEDs go dimmer as they age - when is the recommended change out time? How costly will it be to change out LEDs?

LEDs are just now being used for cars, the first car was just released with all LED headlights (Audi R8 & Lexus LS) ....

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9160530#post9160530 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ConcreteReefer
So this T5 vs. MH is pretty much pointless.

maybe for you ... but for the rest of people that cannot afford, or simply will not pay $2896 (+ Tax) + Shipping ... it still is very much worth discussing.

 

[coralfarmer84]

i agree, LED's will not get cheaper anytime soon.... just as metal halides have not come down in price nor anything else in this hobby lol. Its just one of them things were you have something that works and your going to pay for it.

By the way i'm going with T-5 and metal halide in about 2 weeks. So the best of both worlds can rock on.

 

[ConcreteReefer]

OK, Solaris is the only LED fixture on the market right now.
just wait, look at how Tunze was the only prop-pump and now we have about 4 mfg's making them-Vortech,Seio & Hydor (not to mention the cheap mjmod)--
but; just like Tunze, they cannot seem to keep the Solaris in stock.


With the Solaris you have to take the following into consideration-The only comparable MH fixture that comes with a computer to simulate dawn/dusk, clouds & moon phases is the
Sfiligoi Infinity with ACLS. the price- $4,000 & up. The downfall of ACLS- It does not dim T5's, just MH's- so you would have to spend more to control the T5's.

Here we go-Wiz, This is what I've been thinking about for the past couple of months.

Cost of owning LED vs. MH - 5yr. comparison
72" outer orbit pro (1062w MH=3-250w T5.ho=8-39watt LED=12 blue & 12 white)
vs.
72" Solaris 20k

Lets compare: Outer Orbit
MH/T5 combo- $1000
Chiller 1/2hp- $800
Solar dimmer- $500
Bulbs 1yr x5 - $1700
electric- 1yr x5- $600
electricity- est. $10 more/month (low) for the MH/T5+chiller

Outer Orbit-Total cost 5 yrs-$4600


Solaris: Total cost 5 yrs-$$3067 http://www.theculturedreef.com/solaris_price.htm


So, Up front cost are a little more for the Solaris than MH/T5, but in the long term, you actually save money.

Now, The question- Is the light output of the Solaris equal to the output of the outer orbit? From what I've read, most people that buy the Solaris have to turn the Light output down initially due to coral bleaching. If there's any truth to this, who knows?

 

[ConcreteReefer]

The life excpectancy of these LEDs is supposedly 50,000 hours - that would be 5.7 years.

How did you come up with this #??

If you run it 10hrs a day x 365=3,650hrs/yr

50,000/3,650 = 13.69 yrs??

right??

 

[wiszmaster]

Of course - its that way with anything!

AFAIK - The biggest issue to date is still the development of LEDs ... the LED technology has not progressed as fast as expected ... but worse .. pricing is still too high for good quality large diode LEDs


i don't see you calculating ANY power consumption into your equasion for money savings for the Solaris.

I am well aware of the long term money saving ability of products - I work for a comany that builds ENERGY EFFICIENT homes - HOWEVER they cost up to 15% more upfront ... you would make your money back after a few years ... most people don't have that kind of time to wait for the payback.

The government gives me, the builder between $500-$1,500 to make our homes more energy efficient.

Here is the catch ... The certification to get this government money costs me about $300.

even worse ... the material & equipment in order to qualify & make homes more efficient adds approximately $5,000-$15,000 ontop of the construction cost ...

I haev had lots of customers walk in & request the most efficient home - however none of them were willing to pay for the extra $15,000 - payback would take about 10 years.

Please, go ahead & buy a Toyota Prius - I'd love to ... great concept - just too bad that you won't be saving money until 3-4 years from now - when you'll probably be selling/trading it in anyway. Why? higher upfront cost. not to mention the replacement cost for the batteries.

and again - the LEDs dim with age - long before they burn out @ their 5.7 year lifetime excpectancy. So will you really let these LEDs run for their 50,000 hour duty cycle? most wouldn't .. not if they dim. The reefer that is concerned about controlling their lights with dimming capabilities during the day to simulate a cloudy day would most likely replace the LEDs before they reach 50% light output ...


You can always create a demand by limiting supply. Its Great marketing!

ONLY 5 Units left in stock - Purchase NOW - Next shipment not until march - preorder now ... these units go quick.


Don't get me wrong - i'm all for going LED, I'd love to ... less heat, eventhough LEDs will get hot, and more so - the transformers & power supplies will.
However the technology is not ready for affordable mainstream.


thats just my $0.02 ... take it for whats it worth ... nothing.

 

[wiszmaster]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9164229#post9164229 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ConcreteReefer
How did you come up with this #??

If you run it 10hrs a day x 365=3,650hrs/yr

50,000/3,650 = 13.69 yrs??

right??

i did a 24 hour day ... my guess is that since they dim with moonlights that the entire unit may be dimmed down really low ... maybe 5% ?

 

[wiszmaster]

ok - i see the unit has seperate LEDs for lunar cylcles ...


"dim the actinic blue LEDs, white LEDs, Lunar actinic blue LEDs and Lunar White LEDS independently from 0-100%. "